Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The 911 Conspiracy Theory In Under 5 Minutes

[Toro]

This is still going on?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

was it a design flaw ??...is that what NIST determined or do most skyscrapers collapse from scattered office fires ??

It was a design flaw, and codes have been changed so that buildings like the Twins or the Salomon Brothers Building will never be built again. That is why their replacements are/were built with a totally different design.

what codes where changed ?..the design of wtc 7 was never called into question ...and dont post some stupid fire code reg changes like "better lighting in stairwells"

23 building and fire code changes were approved by the International Code Council (ICC) based on recommendations from the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Changes included the widening of exit stairways and the hardening of stairwells and elevator hoistways, improved fireproofing and sprinklers, and the establishment of emergency elevators for evacuation and firefighter access.

Building Code Changes Adopted a Month After NIST WTC 7 Report

The new codes address areas such as increasing structural resistance to building collapse from fire and other incidents; requiring a third exit stairway for tall buildings; increasing the width of all stairways by 50 percent in new high-rises; strengthening criteria for the bonding, proper installation and inspection of sprayed fire-resistive materials (commonly known as "fireproofing"

Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.
Broadening the definition of the primary structural frame to include bracing members essential to vertical stability (such as floor systems or cross bracing) whether or not they carry gravity loads.

New International Building Codes Address Fire Safety And Evacuation Issues For Tall Structures

 

[Obamerican]

falling debris started the fire ,yes..but that does not change the fact that according to NIST ..the failure of this column ..under any circumstance would of initiated the collapse sequence

That's right, and the cause of failure on 9/11/01 was fire, not hush-a-boom devices.

was it a design flaw ??...is that what NIST determined or do most skyscrapers collapse from scattered office fires ??

Scattered office fires? I guess jumbo jets don't figure into the equation? Fucking idiot. WTC7? Entire front facade removed by a collapsing 110 story skyscraper.

You're an idiot, Gage-dupe.

 

[eots]

That's right, and the cause of failure on 9/11/01 was fire, not hush-a-boom devices.

was it a design flaw ??...is that what NIST determined or do most skyscrapers collapse from scattered office fires ??

Scattered office fires? I guess jumbo jets don't figure into the equation? Fucking idiot. WTC7? Entire front facade removed by a collapsing 110 story skyscraper.

You're an idiot, Gage-dupe.

No jumbo jets hit wtc 7 and fires where spread across several floors ,some sprinkle systems where still operational .......what part of damage from falling debris was not a significant factor in the collapse escapes you ???

 

[Rat in the Hat]

was it a design flaw ??...is that what NIST determined or do most skyscrapers collapse from scattered office fires ??

Scattered office fires? I guess jumbo jets don't figure into the equation? Fucking idiot. WTC7? Entire front facade removed by a collapsing 110 story skyscraper.

You're an idiot, Gage-dupe.

No jumbo jets hit wtc 7 and fires where spread across several floors ,some sprinkle systems where still operational .......what part of damage from falling debris was not a significant factor in the collapse escapes you ???

What sprinkler systems were operational? The water mains were destroyed when the towers fell. The only water they had was being supplied by fire-boats, with pumper truck relays from the waterfront to the site.

 

[eots]

It was a design flaw, and codes have been changed so that buildings like the Twins or the Salomon Brothers Building will never be built again. That is why their replacements are/were built with a totally different design.

what codes where changed ?..the design of wtc 7 was never called into question ...and dont post some stupid fire code reg changes like "better lighting in stairwells"

Building Code Changes Adopted a Month After NIST WTC 7 Report

The new codes address areas such as increasing structural resistance to building collapse from fire and other incidents; requiring a third exit stairway for tall buildings; increasing the width of all stairways by 50 percent in new high-rises; strengthening criteria for the bonding, proper installation and inspection of sprayed fire-resistive materials (commonly known as "fireproofing"

Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.
Broadening the definition of the primary structural frame to include bracing members essential to vertical stability (such as floor systems or cross bracing) whether or not they carry gravity loads.

New International Building Codes Address Fire Safety And Evacuation Issues For Tall Structures

its a bunch of fire codes you fucking moron..post an official statement calling the design of wtc 7 into question and the applicable code changes made to reflect them...not crap about better lighting or extra exits

 

[Rat in the Hat]

what codes where changed ?..the design of wtc 7 was never called into question ...and dont post some stupid fire code reg changes like "better lighting in stairwells"

Building Code Changes Adopted a Month After NIST WTC 7 Report

Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.
Broadening the definition of the primary structural frame to include bracing members essential to vertical stability (such as floor systems or cross bracing) whether or not they carry gravity loads.

New International Building Codes Address Fire Safety And Evacuation Issues For Tall Structures

its a bunch of fire codes you fucking moron..post an official statement calling the design of wtc 7 into question and the applicable code changes made to reflect them...not crap about better lighting or extra exits

That's weird, AE911T calls them building code changes, but you don't. Odd.

Anyway, don't you think changes like these make the new buildings different from the old ones?

 

[eots]

Building Code Changes Adopted a Month After NIST WTC 7 Report



New International Building Codes Address Fire Safety And Evacuation Issues For Tall Structures

its a bunch of fire codes you fucking moron..post an official statement calling the design of wtc 7 into question and the applicable code changes made to reflect them...not crap about better lighting or extra exits

That's weird, AE911T calls them building code changes, but you don't. Odd.

Anyway, don't you think changes like these make the new buildings different from the old ones?

no not in any significant structural way and the bulk of it is under fire codes

 

[Rat in the Hat]

its a bunch of fire codes you fucking moron..post an official statement calling the design of wtc 7 into question and the applicable code changes made to reflect them...not crap about better lighting or extra exits

That's weird, AE911T calls them building code changes, but you don't. Odd.

Anyway, don't you think changes like these make the new buildings different from the old ones?

no not in any significant structural way and the bulk of it is under fire codes

 

[eots]

you know as well as I do there was nothing that called the design of wtc 7 into question and no changes made to building codes specific to any design flaw in the wtc 7

 

[Obamerican]

you know as well as I do there was nothing that called the design of wtc 7 into question and no changes made to building codes specific to any design flaw in the wtc 7

WOW!! Even though you won't admit it, you have changed the way you argue 9/11. Now no one can argue with you about WTC1 and WTC2 without you changing it around to WTC7. I see it as you picking your battles (good approach) and you were getting your ass handed to you with the twin towers.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

'911: A Conspiracy Theory.' Brilliant.

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube

I was watching the news of the first plane hitting the tower when all of a sudden the second plane hit.When the buildings started collapsing from the TOP I said to myself that the heat from the fires were causing the metal skeletons of the structure to fail, thereby letting the weight of the floors to collapse to the next floor and pancaking to the bottom. I've been at building demolitions and those explosions started the collapse from the BOTTOM floor until the building telescoped DOWN.
Since the matter of a conspiracy has arisen and to allay everyone's concerns, I will divulge a secret. There was no 9/11, no planes or buildings. It was a David Copperfield illusion, as was the Pentagon and Shanksville,PA.You conspiracy nuts can now go back to your research and find another event.

you just debunked yourself and helped the Truthers in thats what we been saying all along. you mentioned explosions starting the collapse at the bottom.well at the time the planes hit the towers witnesses reported hearing explosions going off in the basement. there were some mistimed explosions that did go off in the bottom like that one before and during the collapse. so you kinda shoot down the governments theory for us with your own words.


conspiracy nuts are what you Bush dupes are because you deny reality and dont do any research. You just proved that you slept through junior high school science classes because if you knew anything at all about the laws of physics,you would know that the top of the roof SHOULD have tipped over sideways continuing its momentum and that buildings dont fall at free fall speeds due to fires the same way buildings come down in controlled demolitions. also jet fuel only reaches temps of 1800. which is not hot enough to melt steel.steel melts at 2800. so there is a problem with the molten pools of steel that were found everywhere and again you show your ignorance of science in the fact those buildings were emitting black smoke which means they were oxygen starved and hardly hot enough to cause them to fail.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube

No pancaking collapse here and this tower burned for HOURS on end and unlike the twin towers,was lit up like a torch.people are grasping at straws in defeat to live in denial here.

I see the OCTA'S keep avoiding watching this video at the beginning ogf the thread since it shreads to pieces the official version.lol.

 

[daws101]

oh..you mean like this ???

wtc 7 collapse - YouTube

no, not like that wtc7 was not hit by a plane but by tons of debris and it burned for 8 hours .you were wrong the first time you posted this silly clip and you're still wrong, gage butt boi.

NIST determined damage from debris was not a significant factor in the collapse and it was in fact the failure of a single column #79 from fire that initiated the collapse and that the failure of this one column under any circumstance would of initiated the collapse

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.


SO EITHER EOT'S IS INTENTIONALLY MISQUOTING NIST OR IS ILLITERATE!!

 

[Hossfly]

'911: A Conspiracy Theory.' Brilliant.

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube

I was watching the news of the first plane hitting the tower when all of a sudden the second plane hit.When the buildings started collapsing from the TOP I said to myself that the heat from the fires were causing the metal skeletons of the structure to fail, thereby letting the weight of the floors to collapse to the next floor and pancaking to the bottom. I've been at building demolitions and those explosions started the collapse from the BOTTOM floor until the building telescoped DOWN.
Since the matter of a conspiracy has arisen and to allay everyone's concerns, I will divulge a secret. There was no 9/11, no planes or buildings. It was a David Copperfield illusion, as was the Pentagon and Shanksville,PA.You conspiracy nuts can now go back to your research and find another event.

you just debunked yourself and helped the Truthers in thats what we been saying all along. you mentioned explosions starting the collapse at the bottom.well at the time the planes hit the towers witnesses reported hearing explosions going off in the basement. there were some mistimed explosions that did go off in the bottom like that one before and during the collapse. so you kinda shoot down the governments theory for us with your own words.


conspiracy nuts are what you Bush dupes are because you deny reality and dont do any research. You just proved that you slept through junior high school science classes because if you knew anything at all about the laws of physics,you would know that the top of the roof SHOULD have tipped over sideways continuing its momentum and that buildings dont fall at free fall speeds due to fires the same way buildings come down in controlled demolitions. also jet fuel only reaches temps of 1800. which is not hot enough to melt steel.steel melts at 2800. so there is a problem with the molten pools of steel that were found everywhere and again you show your ignorance of science in the fact those buildings were emitting black smoke which means they were oxygen starved and hardly hot enough to cause them to fail.

As I stated in my original reply, it was a David Copperfield illusion and it didn't happen. If you look closely you will see that the camera was turned upside down and the debris that looks as if it was falling is actually ascending and the building is collapsing from the bottom. And the smoke is what you are trying to blow up everybodys duffel bag. Carry on.

 

[eots]

I was watching the news of the first plane hitting the tower when all of a sudden the second plane hit.When the buildings started collapsing from the TOP I said to myself that the heat from the fires were causing the metal skeletons of the structure to fail, thereby letting the weight of the floors to collapse to the next floor and pancaking to the bottom. I've been at building demolitions and those explosions started the collapse from the BOTTOM floor until the building telescoped DOWN.
Since the matter of a conspiracy has arisen and to allay everyone's concerns, I will divulge a secret. There was no 9/11, no planes or buildings. It was a David Copperfield illusion, as was the Pentagon and Shanksville,PA.You conspiracy nuts can now go back to your research and find another event.

you just debunked yourself and helped the Truthers in thats what we been saying all along. you mentioned explosions starting the collapse at the bottom.well at the time the planes hit the towers witnesses reported hearing explosions going off in the basement. there were some mistimed explosions that did go off in the bottom like that one before and during the collapse. so you kinda shoot down the governments theory for us with your own words.


conspiracy nuts are what you Bush dupes are because you deny reality and dont do any research. You just proved that you slept through junior high school science classes because if you knew anything at all about the laws of physics,you would know that the top of the roof SHOULD have tipped over sideways continuing its momentum and that buildings dont fall at free fall speeds due to fires the same way buildings come down in controlled demolitions. also jet fuel only reaches temps of 1800. which is not hot enough to melt steel.steel melts at 2800. so there is a problem with the molten pools of steel that were found everywhere and again you show your ignorance of science in the fact those buildings were emitting black smoke which means they were oxygen starved and hardly hot enough to cause them to fail.

As I stated in my original reply, it was a David Copperfield illusion and it didn't happen. If you look closely you will see that the camera was turned upside down and the debris that looks as if it was falling is actually ascending and the building is collapsing from the bottom. And the smoke is what you are trying to blow up everybodys duffel bag. Carry on.

you are an idiot..who no doubt does not even understand the official story or explanations of the collapses

 

[daws101]

you just debunked yourself and helped the Truthers in thats what we been saying all along. you mentioned explosions starting the collapse at the bottom.well at the time the planes hit the towers witnesses reported hearing explosions going off in the basement. there were some mistimed explosions that did go off in the bottom like that one before and during the collapse. so you kinda shoot down the governments theory for us with your own words.


conspiracy nuts are what you Bush dupes are because you deny reality and dont do any research. You just proved that you slept through junior high school science classes because if you knew anything at all about the laws of physics,you would know that the top of the roof SHOULD have tipped over sideways continuing its momentum and that buildings dont fall at free fall speeds due to fires the same way buildings come down in controlled demolitions. also jet fuel only reaches temps of 1800. which is not hot enough to melt steel.steel melts at 2800. so there is a problem with the molten pools of steel that were found everywhere and again you show your ignorance of science in the fact those buildings were emitting black smoke which means they were oxygen starved and hardly hot enough to cause them to fail.

As I stated in my original reply, it was a David Copperfield illusion and it didn't happen. If you look closely you will see that the camera was turned upside down and the debris that looks as if it was falling is actually ascending and the building is collapsing from the bottom. And the smoke is what you are trying to blow up everybodys duffel bag. Carry on.

you are an idiot..who no doubt does not even understand the official story or explanations of the collapses

who's the idiot? you're so fixated you don't even see that you're being fucked with!
when people join a cult the first thing to go is a sense of humor!

 

[eots]

As I stated in my original reply, it was a David Copperfield illusion and it didn't happen. If you look closely you will see that the camera was turned upside down and the debris that looks as if it was falling is actually ascending and the building is collapsing from the bottom. And the smoke is what you are trying to blow up everybodys duffel bag. Carry on.

you are an idiot..who no doubt does not even understand the official story or explanations of the collapses

who's the idiot? you're so fixated you don't even see that you're being fucked with!
when people join a cult the first thing to go is a sense of humor!

buddies David Copperfield nonsense was not witty or funny ..it was just stupid
and I have no doubt he knows very little about the NIST explanations of the collapse

 

[daws101]

you are an idiot..who no doubt does not even understand the official story or explanations of the collapses

who's the idiot? you're so fixated you don't even see that you're being fucked with!
when people join a cult the first thing to go is a sense of humor!

buddies David Copperfield nonsense was not witty or funny ..it was just stupid
and I have no doubt he knows very little about the NIST explanations of the collapse

having no doubts about your version of events on 911 is why you get your ass handed to you on consistent basis.